"The authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death."
— Adolf Hitler, 1939
The question seems pretty simple: Should Terri Schiavo, the nation's most famous not-quite-dead heroine, be allowed to live? Feeding tube in? Feeding tube out?
Or, for those with a slightly more metaphysical bent, the queries might be worded: Is Schiavo alive or not alive? If "not alive," does that necessarily mean she's dead?
What is certain is that, as of this publication, Schiavo has been in a limbo the doctors call a "persistent vegetative state" for 13 years, nine months and 25 days. That medical phrase is meant to convey that on an intellectual level, Schiavo — who was a vibrant woman before a brain-starving heart attack at age 26 — has checked out.
Her heart beats, her lungs huff and puff air, her facial muscles occasionally twitch, her other organs more or less pump, secrete and process — except for her brain.
Maybe our inquiry should be: Is there a difference for Schiavo? For us?
Part of the problem in framing the paramount question about Schiavo is that, for her, it's irrelevant. She probably doesn't know that in some mechanical ways she's alive (defined as: not utterly dead). Which means that she likely won't recognize the moment when she becomes decidedly deceased (if she isn't already).
Schiavo is clearly providing others with life — of sorts. She is for the media, in their own persistent vegetative states, that most sustaining of all stories — long-term, high-emotion impact with little necessity to actually think.
For politicians, the opportunities to pander to the religious right have afforded absolutely delectable nourishment. Just days before Halloween, in an eloquently appropriate celebration of the macabre, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ignored the rule of law (hey, he's a Bush) and utilized hastily passed sham legislation to re-insert Schiavo's feeding tube after a judge had OK'd its removal.
Picture that tube entering one arm while a much larger tube, exiting from another limb, is voraciously sucked on by a ghoulish governor seeking to drain every drop of political nutrient from the tragic Schiavo. George W. Bush, not to be outdone by his baby brother as a political Dracula, quickly poked his own straw into Schiavo's nascent corpse via a "me-too" declaration of support for bro Jeb.
And, although it's almost too distasteful to mention their names, Florida's Republican state Sen. Daniel Webster and House Yapper Johnnie Byrd, both bucking for the U.S. Senate, were shameless in introducing the legislation enabling the Brothers Bush's vampiric publicity grab. Call Byrd and Webster Florida's own Igor and Renfield.
Schiavo's plight is such sweet nectar for the craven, but does her role as gourmet political food mean she has acquired a netherworld form of life?
Lost in all of the self-serving performances at le cirque de la mort in Clearwater are some far deeper issues, ones that are really important to every individual and ones that ultimately define what type of society we will choose to be. Indeed, it's harder to imagine deeper and more treacherous social fault lines than those involving life and death — or, more precisely, who decides whether you, yes, you, live or die and why.
Intriguingly, as we'll see, not all is as it seems in measuring these ethical divides. "Progressives" often hold views that are rooted in the horror-philosophies of Nazis and racial "purifiers." Meanwhile, faux (read: neo) "conservatives" — notably the Bushites — claim to be on the side of life, while their dark family histories and lethal deeds say otherwise.
Oh, by the way, I quoted Hitler at the beginning of this column. Where did he get such notions? Right from a movement with its roots deep in American soil.
Let's meet Doctor Death. No, not Jack Kevorkian; he was merely the Technician of Death. I'm speaking of Princeton University ethics guru Peter Singer, who absolutely adores cuddly little animals but not necessarily infant humans.Singer, an Australian who (I include this for irony) lost three of four grandparents to the Holocaust, was a founder of the animal liberation movement, declaring in a most erudite manner that many mammals were sufficiently self-aware to be considered "persons." Gleefully wacky groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were born of such ruminations.
It's only fair to recount that Singer is aggressive in pushing many noble causes — providing relief for famine victims, for example. There is, however, a chilling corollary to his declaration that your dog and cat — not to mention whales, pigs, monkeys and a whole menagerie of not-so-dumb critters — are "persons." According to Singer, human beings who have lost their capacity for self-awareness or never had it, don't have a claim on society's resources to keep them alive. By his logic, Schiavo has less right to life than Fluffie or Fido.
Moreover, the movement of which Singer is the reigning diva, "utilitarian" ethics, holds that folks whose birth defects, illnesses or injuries make their enjoyment of life marginal would be better off out of their misery — even if, as they're wheeled into the euthanasia chamber, they're screaming, "No, wait, really, I don't mind living in a wheelchair. Please dooonnnn'ttt… urk!"
More important, society would be better without such unpleasant people around because, with utilitarians, all that counts is raising the overall level of happiness. A dead person cannot, by definition, be unhappy, nor can an inherently unhappy (read: retarded, severely disabled, etc.) person continue to infect others with their dismal state after they have been promoted to a higher astral plane. Thus, the rest of us must be happier once these wet blankets are discarded, according to the utilitarians.
Among the absolutely and perfectly logical extensions of Singer's theories: Defective infants should be offed (before their 28th day, Singer declares). They aren't yet cognizant of their own existence, and their early exit would mean that a family's other children and parents would have happier lives. Society, meanwhile, would be spared the expense of caring for these, to Singer, un-persons.
Some utilitarians, although not Singer, even tout a brave new world in which the organs of the less worthy are harvested so that the productive elites can have longer, productive lives. Think of Strom Thurmond living to 300, thanks to all of those poor folks and dummies who gave their all, literally.
When I asked professor Singer about Terri Schiavo, his answer wasn't a surprise.
"Is there any point in keeping someone [like Schiavo] alive?" he mused. "In a previous age, she would have been dead long ago. I don't see any reason to keep the tube in place."
Where did this appalling thinking hatch? One answer is the eugenics movement. This ideology — fostered by America's elite families, including the Bush clan — held that we should cull the herd by inhibiting breeding among the socially inferior.(George W.'s and Jeb's grandfather and great-grandfather had extensive links with Nazi Germany and its official pseudo-science, eugenics. Previously classified documents were uncovered by Miami journalist John Buchanan in September that add details to episodes such as the 1942 seizure of Bush-related companies for "trading with the enemy." Prescott Bush, grandfather to the president and Florida's governor, lost his first run for the U.S. Senate in 1950 after famed columnist Drew Pearson revealed the family's long sponsorship of eugenics.)
One of the more ghastly applications of eugenics was the mass, involuntary sterilization of Americans, beginning in 1904 and continuing even after the Nuremburg trials, which declared such acts crimes against humanity. Altogether, about 60,000 Americans were sterilized, including 3,000 in Georgia after the state passed a eugenics law in 1937. Florida was one of the few states that didn't adopt a eugenics law.
"Overwhelmingly, the only crimes of these people were that they were poor and black," Edwin Black, author of a book on eugenics, War Against the Weak, told me.
Elsewhere in the world, some peculiar folks perked up at the idea of improving the race. "American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler," Black writes. "Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide."
For "progressives," there are disturbing tendrils of eugenics that are still evident today. Planned Parenthood — an icon of the left — was founded by Margaret Sanger, who endorsed the sterilization of "genetically inferior races."
Back to Terri Schiavo. Those who want her kept alive (if that's what she is), include the usual battalions from the anti-abortion/right-to-life movement. I'm pro-choice, but reluctantly so. To me, a fetus is potential, not yet a human. Tempering my view are my five adopted children — and the scary knowledge that many would have urged their birth mother to have abortions.Among the right-to-lifers, I have profound respect for some — those who consistently oppose all homicide, including wars, capital punishment and, as they define murder, abortion. Pope John Paul II comes to mind.
I have an equal measure of disdain for the selective killers — the religious right that gnashes its teeth at the thought of abortion but sees no problem in executing people, including (as happened this month in Georgia) the insane and those who were children when they committed their crimes. Nor do the very un-Christian preachers see much wrong in killing thousands in a war based on deceit.
But while the sensational disputes over abortion or cases such as Schiavo's provide hints at the philosophical divisions in society, you have to look elsewhere to view the hidden depths of what's really at stake.
You'll probably never see Bush welcome Peter Singer to the White House. Nor will Bush ever publicly speak about his family's long-time (and never disowned, much less disavowed) fascination with eugenics. And the Republican Party continues to fanatically embrace the anti-abortion movement — it's good politics, especially when the Democrats offer so little in the values department.
But, for the right, it's all a sham. Here's why. The number of people without health insurance is increasing. Medical expenses are soaring. The Bushies' tax cuts for the rich are stealth missiles aimed at bankrupting America's social safety net programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid.
"Traditionally, the medical profession treated all, whether they could pay or not," Harvard medical ethicist Arthur Dyck explains. "That was enabled by sharing profits among providers. Now that has changed. Companies are seeking to reap enormous profits, and they're encouraged by public policy."
Dyck proposes a tax on the medical industry's profits — essentially a cap on windfalls. "The alternative is curtailing medical care at a time when we have the power and technology to save lives," he told me. "That would be morally unacceptable."
In essence, the old right-wing eugenics crowd — including Bush — has merely shifted over to economic Darwinism as a tactic to thin the race of undesirables, a.k.a. the poor.
"We're seeing the emergence of a system with three types of care," Black notes. "For the wealthy, excellent. For the masses reliant on insurance, medicine has become the art of denial and the avoidance of delivering health care. For the rest, 47-million and climbing, nothing."
Terri Schiavo, then, is a diversion, a smokescreen to blind society to what's really going down. Enormous expense and effort is expended to keep Schiavo warm, if not quite alive. The politicians go to theatrical extremes to defend her "life." They align themselves with right-to-lifers — while never hesitating to pack the death chambers or drop the bombs.
Meanwhile, we're moved and distracted by Schiavo's tragedy, and we don't pay attention to what's happening behind the curtain. Nor are the media much interested in pulling aside the curtain — that would be work.
What remains concealed is that the very same guys who are pushing the feeding tube back into Shiavo, posturing that they are doing God's work, are pulling out the tubes from the health care system for most of America. Even the Devil would be proud of such a deceit.
John Sugg, previously editor of the Weekly Planet, is senior editor of the Planet's sister paper in Atlanta, Creative Loafing. He can be reached at 404-614-1241 or at john.sugg@creativeloafing.com.
This article appears in Nov 20-26, 2003.